You said "I have lived and worked in China for six years. I have to tell you also that I am no economist. However, sometimes generalists like me find it easier than the specialists to see the big picture".

I beg to disagree, although I would also define myself as a generalist on matters concerning China.

I do not see how an authoritarian nation can possibly be better than a democratic nation with thee latter obviously more appropriate to finding the right balance between economic, social and environmental issues, never mind the folly of comparing the power struggle between the US and China.

As for your comment on expensive holden cars, there is always a need to make sure that workers earn enough to actually be able to buy them.
Sure the West is still rich, albeit with much higher debt levels, but I expect the issue of wealth generation versus consumption to define growing trade tension between the West and china in coming years as the trend towards freer trade will be tempered once again.

A brave, and timely, article Mr Hennessy. Although the language is at times a little too "Today Tonight" to make it bulletproof.

Historically, governments have been principally concerned - whether benevolently or oppressively - with their own citizenry. Sweden built a highly internally-focussed, predominantly welfare-based system, while North Korea developed its internal focus by shutting its people off from the rest of the world. It's the way it always has been.

For exactly this reason, the "developed" nations have over the centuries been perfectly happy to keep their own people busy and prosperous, without any serious thought about other countries. Whether it was the one-sided trading of the British in India, or the post-war spread of US businesses across the globe, little attention was paid to "balance" or "fairness".

The only reason we are now quibbling about China's approach to building its economy for the benefit if its people, is because it hurts. But it hurts only in a way that Europe and the US have "hurt" other economies in the past.

Chris Lewis, I think, misses the point just a little.

>>I do not see how an authoritarian nation can possibly be better than a democratic nation with thee latter obviously more appropriate to finding the right balance between economic, social and environmental issues<<

"Better"? "More Appropriate"?

These are terms that would sound extremely self-serving - and probably pompous and self-righteous as well - to Indians, Chinese, and probably most South Americans and Africans too.

Nor is it a matter of "colonial guilt", although it is perfectly normal to carry just a little of that around, given our rather privileged histories.

It's simply "what comes around, goes around", and it would be smarter to devote our attention to coming to terms with it, rather than sitting in a corner whingeing about our ways being "better" or "more appropriate".

Good article. I'm in full agreement Brian http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9991

Regards
Peter Coates

These matters concerning China and the US will lead to different opinions. I make no apology for expressing disdain for China's political system and openly support Western interests.

In reality, however, protectionism wil rise further and the US will become less tolerant to China's bahaviour by the day. That is my opinion. How far we go is a matter for debate, but
China's rise will not go on uncontested given its disregard for the rules.

With all due respect Brian, you're just as wrong as you are right.

I've lived in China myself. I support your arguments in terms of economic policies - frankly, I think governments do whatever they can to support the living standards of their citizens. So in regards to it being hypocritical to criticize Chinese mercantilism I'm with you all the way.

As for social issues, I disagree. Whilst I concur with other commentators such as Greg Rudd who point out that were the CCP to collapse it would lead to a power vacuum being occupied by crime syndicates as was the case in Russia. This would be bad for everyone. Everywhere.
However, just throwing your hands up and saying "we can't really criticize" is rubbish. That gives those who do wrong carte-blanche to do whatever the hell they like.

China does a lot of things that annoy the west. A fair number of these are good decisions by China, particularly economic decisions, provided they advantage Chinese citizens.

However, a fair number of those decisions aren't made to advantage citizens, they're there to advantage those wielding power and insulate them from change. Some degree of criticism is needed in all societies. It keeps things honest and it provides incremental change along the way.
After the Google incident, the Chinese government commented that it had a responsibility to "shape public opinion". Frankly, I've always believed it was the other way around.
Consider the wealth disparity in China. It has the highest gini index in Asia aside from Nepal, and it makes the US look positively egalitarian.

Brian, if you can access it, read Rowan Callick's brilliant piece on China here. By far the best feature piece I've ever read.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-east-was-red/story-e6frg7e6-1225779432478

It details how things are really run in the higher echelons. Consider the fact that all the most powerful companies are owned and connected to management and that the separation of the judiciary, media, legislature and executive are non-existent.

Chis,
With all due respect your views are very class and culturally biased/based.

I would argue the whole thing is relative. A CCP leader once responded to criticism of the regime by saying " How many people in your country ? What do you think the Chinese peasants would prefer food or western democracy. We can't afford both."
Like it or not he was right. Can you imagine trying to plan for 2 billion Australians?

No government either side can do that for 20 million effectively. Parliament is a bit like herding male feral cats! They spit,snarl, claw each other to bits for dominance and achieve very little important else.

As for us controlling the excesses of power groups, unions, Corporations, special interest groups etc, we're as much at the mercy of the above as the Chinese peasants are to the CPP apparatus.

Ever tried fighting a major Corporation? they simply bury you or their bad actions in mountains of law fees and tactics.
One only need to look at changes in the 'intellectual property' laws and who benefits to see my point.
One woman for 12 songs down loaded received $250000 judgement against her. (justice, fairness?) The Big corp said they were sending a message to the population.
NB none of any of the win money went back to the artists.

As I said before it depends on where you are as to how much freedom you actually have....it all a matter of degree.

NB I don't agree with the CCP behaviour either.

We simply can't claim the moral high ground and finger point.
Mind you it won't stop the US arrogance and bombast from trying though. The other shoe (our debt) hasn't dropped yet....but it will!
I would further argue that the differences between the two systems is simply a matter of temporary degree